Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Notices 84393 

By Order of the Maritime Administrator. 

T. Mitchell Hudson, Jr., 

Secretary, Maritime Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26683 Filed 12–4–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2019–0097; Notice 2] 

FCA US, LLC, Grant of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition. 

SUMMARY: FCA US LLC (f/k/a Chrysler 

Group LLC) (FCA) has determined that 

certain model year (MY) 2019 Chrysler 

Pacifica motor vehicles do not fully 

comply with Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire 

Selection and Rims and Motor Home/ 

Recreation Vehicle Trailer Load 

Carrying Capacity Information for Motor 

Vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 

Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) or Less. FCA 

filed a noncompliance report dated 

August 27, 2019. FCA subsequently 

petitioned NHTSA on September 20, 

2019, for a decision that the subject 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety. This 

document announces the grant of FCA’s 

petition. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ahmad Barnes, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

telephone (202) 366–7236. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview 

FCA has determined that certain MY 

2019 Chrysler Pacifica motor vehicles 

do not fully comply with paragraphs 

S4.3(a) and (b) of FMVSS No. 110, Tire 

Selection and Rims and Motor Home/ 

Recreation Vehicle Trailer Load 

Carrying Capacity Information for Motor 

Vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 

Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) or Less (49 

CFR 571.110). FCA filed a 

noncompliance report dated August 27, 

2019, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 

Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports. FCA 

subsequently petitioned NHTSA on 

September 20, 2019, for an exemption 

from the notification and remedy 

requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 

on the basis that this noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 

556, Exemption for Inconsequential 

Defect or Noncompliance. 

Notice of receipt of FCA’s petition 

was published with a 30-day public 

comment period, on January 6, 2020, in 

the Federal Register (85 FR 553). One 

comment was received. To view the 

petition and all supporting documents 

log onto the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS) website at 

https://www.regulations.gov/. Then 

follow the online search instructions to 

locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2019– 

0097.’’ 

II. Vehicles Involved 

Approximately 350 MY 2019 Chrysler 

Pacifica motor vehicles, manufactured 

between October 4, 2018, and July 3, 

2019, are potentially involved. 

III. Noncompliance 

FCA explains that the noncompliance 

is that the subject vehicle’s tire placard 

label erroneously states the seating 

capacity as seven occupants rather than 

eight occupants, and shows a combined 

occupant and cargo weight of 1,150 lbs. 

rather than 1,240 lbs. as required by 

paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110. 

IV. Rule Requirements 

Paragraphs S4.3(a) and S4.3(b) of 

FMVSS No. 110 include the 

requirements relevant to this petition. 

Each vehicle, except for a trailer or 

incomplete vehicle, shall show the 

information specified in paragraphs 

S4.3(a), vehicle capacity weight 

expressed as the combined weight of 

occupants and cargo and S4.3(b) 

designated seated capacity (expressed in 

terms of total number of occupants and 

number of occupants for each front and 

rear seat location. 

V. Summary of FCA’s Petition 

The following views and arguments 

presented in this section, are the views 

and arguments provided by FCA. 

FCA described the subject 

noncompliance and stated that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety. FCA 

submitted the following views and 

arguments in support of the petition: 

1. While the number of occupants and 

the calculated weight are incorrect on 

the vehicle placard label, the calculated 

weight for seven occupants (1,150 lbs.) 

is below the calculated weight for eight 

occupants (1,240 lbs.), and therefore, 

there is no risk of vehicle overloading. 

2. All information required for 

maintaining and/or replacing the front 

and rear tires is correct on the vehicle 

placard of the affected vehicles. In fact, 

the recommended cold tire inflation 

pressures for both the seven occupants 

and the eight occupant vehicles are the 

same. Therefore, there is no risk of 

under-inflation. 

3. All other applicable requirements 

of FMVSS No. 110 have been met. 

4. The vehicle certification label is 

correct. Vehicles with seven occupants 

and eight occupants share the same 

Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (6055 lbs.), 

and front and rear Gross Axle Weight 

Rating (2950 lbs. and 3200 lbs., 

respectively). 

5. The number of seats and the 

number of safety belts installed in the 

vehicle will clearly indicate to a vehicle 

owner the actual seating capacity, the 

rear seating of the affected vehicles 

contains six seat belt assemblies, and 

provides adequate space for six people 

to occupy the rear seats. Further, the 

vehicle in fact does accommodate six 

occupants and not five as labeled. 

6. FCA is not aware of any crashes, 

injuries, or customer complaints 

associated with this condition. 

7. NHTSA has previously granted 

inconsequential treatment for FMVSS 

110 noncompliance for incorrect vehicle 

placard seated capacity values. 

Examples of the Agency granting a 

similar inconsequentiality petition for 

vehicle placard incorrect seated 

capacity are: 

• General Motors, LLC, 79 FR 69557 

(November 21, 2014) 

• Ford Motor Company, 74 FR 69373 

(December 31, 2009) 

• BMW of North America, LLC, a 

subsidiary of BMW AG, 78 FR 43964 

(July 22, 2013) 

FCA seeks exemption from providing 

notification of the noncompliance, as 

required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a 

remedy for the noncompliance, as 

required by 49 U.S.C. 30120. 

VI. Comments 

NHTSA received one comment from 

the general public. While the Agency 

takes great interest in the public’s 

concerns and appreciates the 

commenter’s feedback, the comment 

does not address the purpose of this 

particular petition. 

VII. NHTSA’s Analysis 

The burden of establishing the 

inconsequentiality of a failure to comply 

with a performance requirement in a 

standard—as opposed to a labeling 

requirement with no performance 

implications—is more substantial and 

difficult to meet. Accordingly, the 

Agency has not found many such 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
84394 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Notices 

1Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition 

for Determination of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899 (Apr. 14, 

2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was 

expected to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to 

vehicle occupants or approaching drivers). 

2See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 

35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding noncompliance had 

no effect on occupant safety because it had no effect 

on the proper operation of the occupant 

classification system and the correct deployment of 

an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods. Inc.; Grant of 

Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) 

(finding occupant using noncompliant light source 

would not be exposed to significantly greater risk 

than occupant using similar compliant light 

source). 

3 Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 

21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016). 

4United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 

754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an 

unreasonable risk when it ‘‘results in hazards as 

potentially dangerous as sudden engine fire, and 

where there is no dispute that at least some such 

hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be 

expected to occur in the future’’). 

5See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of 

Application for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23, 2001) 

(rejecting argument that noncompliance was 

inconsequential because of the small number of 

vehicles affected); Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd.; 

Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016) 

(noting that situations involving individuals 

trapped in motor vehicles—while infrequent—are 

consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.; 

Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21664 (Apr. 12, 

2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be 

granted because the vehicle was produced in very 

low numbers and likely to be operated on a limited 

basis). 

6See Gen. Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for 

Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 

69 FR 19897, 19900 (Apr. 14, 2004); Cosco Inc.; 

Denial of Application for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408, 

29409 (June 1, 1999). 

noncompliances inconsequential.1

Potential performance failures of safetycritical equipment, like seat belts or air 

bags, are rarely deemed inconsequential. 

An important issue to consider in 

determining inconsequentiality based 

upon NHTSA’s prior decisions on 

noncompliance issues was the safety 

risk to individuals who experience the 

type of event against which the recall 

would otherwise protect.2 In general, 

NHTSA does not consider the absence 

of complaints or injuries to show that 

the issue is inconsequential to safety. 

‘‘Most importantly, the absence of a 

complaint does not mean there have not 

been any safety issues, nor does it mean 

that there will not be safety issues in the 

future.’’ 3 ‘‘[T]he fact that in past 

reported cases good luck and swift 

reaction have prevented many serious 

injuries does not mean that good luck 

will continue to work.’’ 4

Arguments that only a small number 

of vehicles or items of motor vehicle 

equipment are affected have also not 

justified granting an inconsequentiality 

petition.5 Similarly, NHTSA has 

rejected petitions based on the assertion 

that only a small percentage of vehicles 

or items of equipment are likely to 

actually exhibit a noncompliance. The 

percentage of potential occupants that 

could be adversely affected by a 

noncompliance does not determine the 

question of inconsequentiality. Rather, 

the issue to consider is the consequence 

to an occupant who is exposed to the 

consequence of that noncompliance.6

These considerations are also relevant 

when considering whether a defect is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

FCA explains that the noncompliance 

is that the subject vehicles’ tire placard 

label erroneously states the seating 

capacity as seven occupants rather than 

eight occupants, and shows a combined 

occupant and cargo weight of 1,150 lbs. 

rather than 1,240 lbs. as required by 

paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110. 

NHTSA has reviewed and accepts 

FCA’s analyses and supporting 

documentation that the noncompliance 

is inconsequential to motor vehicle 

safety. FCA has provided sufficient 

documentation that other than the 

placard/labeling error, the vehicles 

comply with all other safety 

performance requirements of FMVSS 

110. If owners were to follow the 

information on the label, there would be 

no risk of overloading the vehicle’s tires. 

While the tire and loading placards 

incorrectly indicate the number of 

seating positions and the calculated 

weight capacity, the subject labeling 

error alone poses little if any risk to 

motor vehicle safety since the number of 

seating positions is readily apparent in 

the subject vehicles. The rear seating of 

the affected vehicles contains six seat 

belt assemblies and provides adequate 

space for six people to occupy the rear 

seats. In addition, all information 

required for maintaining and/or 

replacing the front and rear tires is 

located on the vehicle placard of the 

affected vehicles. 

VIII. NHTSA’s Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA finds that FCA has met its 

burden of persuasion that the subject 

FMVSS No. 110 noncompliance in the 

affected vehicles is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, 

FCA’s petition is hereby granted and 

FCA is consequently exempted from the 

obligation of providing notification of, 

and a free remedy for, that 

noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 

and 30120. 

NHTSA notes that the statutory 

provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to 

file petitions for a determination of 

inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to 

exempt manufacturers only from the 

duties found in sections 30118 and 

30120, respectively, to notify owners, 

purchasers, and dealers of a defect or 

noncompliance and to remedy the 

defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this 

decision only applies to the subject 

vehicles that FCA no longer controlled 

at the time it determined that the 

noncompliance existed. However, the 

granting of this petition does not relieve 

equipment distributors and dealers of 

the prohibitions on the sale, offer for 

sale, or introduction or delivery for 

introduction into interstate commerce of 

the noncompliant vehicles under their 

control after FCA notified them that the 

subject noncompliance existed. 

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: 

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 

501.8.) 

Otto G. Matheke III, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26604 Filed 12–4–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions 

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets 

Control, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the 

Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets 

Control (OFAC) is publishing the names 

of one or more persons that have been 

placed on OFAC’s Specially Designated 

Nationals and Blocked Persons List 

(SDN List) based on OFAC’s 

determination that one or more 

applicable legal criteria were satisfied. 

All property and interests in property 

subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these 

persons are blocked, and U.S. persons 

are generally prohibited from engaging 

in transactions with them. Additionally, 

OFAC is publishing updates to the 

identifying information of one person 

currently included on the SDN List. 

DATES: See Supplementary Information 

section for effective date(s). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

OFAC: Bradley T. Smith, Director, tel.: 

202–622–2490; Associate Director for 

Global Targeting, tel.: 202–622–2420; 

Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 

202–622–2480; Assistant Director for 

Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202–622–4855; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES